Wits and Wagers

This week I played Wits and Wagers with my library board-gaming group over a lunch hour at Carleton University’s MacOdrum Library. Wits and Wagers is a game for 3-7 players and combines traditional trivia with something not typically seen in trivia games: betting. Recommended play time is 25 minutes but my group played over our lunch hour (about 45 minutes). The group consisted of a mix of librarians and support staff who periodically meet to play various board games in the library collection; in this session, we had five players.

The goal of Wits and Wagers is to answer trivia questions (always a numerical answer) and bet on which answer given by all the players is the closest to the correct answer without going over. For example: How many countries won at least one medal at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing? or What is the record for most goals scored by a single player in an NHL hockey game? There is no history or backstory needed for the player to understand the gameplay. However, prior knowledge of other trivia games, such as Trivial Pursuit, can be beneficial to playing this game.

Although the rules state the player with the most chips at the end of seven rounds of questions is the winner, we just played until we ran out of time. It did not take anything away from the gameplay at all. What I particularly liked about this game was that it was a new take on a traditional trivia-style game. I do not consider myself an overly strong trivia player but I found the betting aspect allowed me to compete against the stronger trivia players.

The rules for the game are simple but involve a number of steps. I have included a simple version of the rules below (with photos for clarity).

Gameplay and rules

Before gameplay commences, each person receives a small whiteboard card, a dry erase marker, and two betting chips. In the center of the table, there is a betting mat and timer that includes the betting odds for each answer submitted. Poker chips are used for betting (red=1, blue=5) and are kept in reserve until correct bets are made. Players stack seven question cards in the middle of the table.

Gameplay is divided into four phases: the question phase, the sorting phase, the betting phase, and the answer phase.

Question phase

In the question phase, players take turns reading out questions to the group. Each card has two questions and corresponds with different rounds. In round one, read the question marked #1 and in round two, read the question marked #2. The timer is started once the question has been read. Each person then writes their answer on the whiteboard card (answers will always be a number). It is important to note that the answer should be as close as possible without going over (Price is Right rules).

Sorting phase

The sorting phase begins when the answer timer expires. Players show their answers and they are placed in the middle of the table and arranged on the board smallest to largest. Duplicate answers are stacked on the same payout slot.

If there are an odd number of answers, the middle answer is put on the 2:1 payout slot.

If there are an even number of answers, the 2:1 payout slot is left empty and the middle answers are put on the 3:1 payout slot.

Betting phase

In the betting phase, players ‘bet’ on the answer they think is the closest to the right answer without exceeding the correct answer. Players are allowed to bet on two answers (remember, each player has two chips). To start the betting phase, someone starts the timer. Players can adjust their bets until the timer expires.

As you win more chips, you can add additional poker chips to your bet. For example: If you payout at 2:1 you receive two red chips. In the next round, you can bet two chips on a single answer for a larger payout.

If you pick incorrectly, you lose those chips. However, you always keep your two initial tokens.

Answer phase

In the answer phase, players look at the back of the card to learn the correct answer to the question. All chips placed on the wrong answers are returned to the “bank”.

The correct number of poker chips is paid out to all players that bet on the correct answer. The player(s) who wrote the correct answer is awarded 3 bonus poker chips.

The winner is the player who has accumulated the most chips after seven questions.

Assessment

Blank assessment tool can be found here.

Wits and wagers completed assessment tool can be found here.

This week I have developed a Likert scale assessment tool to evaluate the various aspects of the game. One aspect of game assessment I have not really addressed this term has been the social aspect of games. For this week’s offline social game, it seemed fitting that I develop an assessment tool that evaluated the social aspect of Wits and wagers.

My assessment tool uses a traditional Likert scale with five possible options for each assessment element (1= the worst to 5= the best). However, to make the tool more visual I have created a “happy face” style grading system. The more effective the game is in fulfilling the criteria, the happier the face becomes. Although my assessment tool can be used by players, game makers, and institutions looking to incorporate games into their learning environment, I intended my assessment tool to be the most valuable to game makers. The tool allows the game designers to quickly see what elements of the game are strong and which can be developed and improved upon for future iterations of the game. I have also included a comment section so that more detailed feedback can be provided by the players.

Design was one of the criteria I included in my assessment tool. Although I know that the term “design” is very broad, it is something that I felt needs to be addressed, especially in social games. According to Norman (2012), it is easy to dismiss design as purely aesthetic, “the prettifying of places and objects to disguise banality” (p. 69). However, Norman argues that this is a serious misunderstanding of what the idea of design is. Due to the misunderstanding of what game design is, I have decided to deconstruct the term into “game aesthetics” and “game flow”. I felt that it was important to include “game flow” into my assessment tool, because in my experience, games can be fundamentally well thought out and the rules clearly articulated but the overall flow of the game is clunky and laborious.

I also drew on the writing of Jane McGonigal (2011) when developing my assessment tool. According to McGonigal, there is something called “happy embarrassment”. Happy embarrassment is when players gently tease each other in a way that makes the player feel good (p. 83). Trash talking is one way that players can incorporate happy embarrassment into the game. However, it has to be fun and playful, not hurtful. McGonigal argues that this type of social interaction is almost as important as the gameplay itself (p. 83). According to Dacher Keltner, a researcher of prosocial emotions at the University of California, “The tease is like a social vaccine … It stimulates the recipient’s emotional system” (as cited in McGonigal, p. 84). Happy embarrassment is something I feel is a strong component of offline social games and I have built it into my assessment tool.

Using chapter 8 (Social gaming experiences), in Scott Nicholson’s book Everyone plays at the library: creating great gaming experiences for all ages, I was able to include what I would argue is a very important aspect of social gaming in my assessment tool: the gaming environment. According to Nicholson (2010), one of the major components of social games is the “focus on players talking, laughing, and getting to know each other” (p. 134). Nicholson also argues that social games help build social interaction when discussion is encouraged after each round of play (p. 136). This is something I witnessed when playing Wits and wagers and I thought it was worth incorporating into my offline social game assessment tool.

Aspects that can be incorporated into an IS game

One of the most limiting gameplay aspects of Wits and wagers is that it requires answers to be written in numerical format. That makes it difficult to transfer into an IS game. However, I think that the betting system used in Wits and wagers makes the game more social since people begin to interact with each other and the board once the round was completed. When I played with my colleagues at work, I found we would often debate the answers we all provided and tried to figure out the answers. This is something Nicholson acknowledges in his book, and I mentioned earlier, that social games help build social interaction when discussion is encouraged after each round of play (p. 136).

I would argue this helps improve user participation and helps build confidence. If you don’t know an answer, you see the answers given by the other players. This has two noticeable effects (at least when I played). First, if I provided a similar answer to other players it boosted my confidence that I was on the right track. Secondly, if I provided an answer far from the norm I could bet on other players answers without feeling penalized for my own lack of knowledge.

I could see two effective uses of the betting mechanic used in introductory library sessions. Players could write down answers to call-number-related questions and bet on which answers are the most likely to be correct (both Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress could be effective using this mechanic). All the players could write down a call number associated with a specific topic and then bet on the answer they feel is the closest to the correct answer.

References

Crapuchettes, D. (2005). Wits and wagers. North Star Games, LLC.

McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York: Penguin Books.

Nicholson, S. (2010). Everybody plays at the library: Creating great gaming experiences for all ages. Medford: Information Today. http://discover.sjlibrary.org/iii/encore_sjsu/record/C__Rb4288344

Norman, D. A. (2002). Design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.